Sunday, December 12, 2010

Orthodoxy and Heresy

I have been thinking a lot the past week about the heresy of "Adoptionism," which was a belief advanced in the early church that Jesus had not been the pre-existent Son of God, but that God had "adopted" him as his Son because of the amazing righteousness and faithfulness to God demonstrated in Jesus' life.

As my professor in seminary, Charlie Cousar, used to say: "Adoptionism is one of those 'biblical' heresies," which is to say there is a good bit of scriptural support for it.

Adoptionist belief emphasized the true humanity of Jesus and the genuineness of his faith and obedience to God. And, these are a couple of deeply important matters of belief that the orthodox church didn't teach very well. Adoptionist belief also affirmed that God had chosen Jesus and raised him up and humanity with him to form a whole new relationship between God and humans. So much of this belief seems to fit with much of scripture, especially Paul's letters and the Gospel of Mark. But,there is one point in Paul's letters when belief in the pre-existence of Jesus, the Christ is proclaimed (Phil. 2:6-11). Most scholars think that Paul took this passage from a hymn of the early church, and didn't write it himself, but nonetheless, Paul affirms this belief by using it in his letter to the Philippians.

As I think about these things, I have started thinking about a dynamic way of thinking that alternates between raw historical experience and reflection on the relationship of that to God. These two poles of religious emphasis are not contradictory, but mutually interdependent. Without the raw historical experience of Jesus life, teachings, death and resurrection, there is no core of revelation to reflect on. Without internalization of this experience through theological/spiritual reflection, there is no transformation of human life by the core experience. Both aspects are part of a living faith, but in the history of the church, we have opposed theological reflection to primal experience. Truth is, both are aspects of a living faith which encompasses heart and mind, body and soul.

The problem with church history is that it excommunicated those who often emphasized a lost element of faith, whether that lost element was of the more reflective sort (Origen) or the more primal sort (Adoptionists or Pelagius).

As a result of our history in the church of not being able to appreciate the dynamic relationship between primal, historical experience and theological/spiritual reflection, we have lost critical elements of our religious tradition.

And, this line of thinking has brought me to a new view on the doctrine of strict substitionary atonement. I am always criticizing this teaching as antithetical to the Gospel, and as a false representation of the character of God. But, there is something right in this teaching, that standing alone is not right. And, that is the emphasis on Jesus' human righteousness before God and the truth that God recognizes it and credits it to humanity as a whole. Paul's letters promote this emphasis, but then take it up into a greater reflection on the involvement of God in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, the Christ.

If you have a belief that loses touch with the historical experience of faith, you begin to speak of a God who is not in relation to the "Word made flesh." If you get stuck in the historical experience of faith and fail to draw that into reflection on how the life of God relates to that experience, then you end up with a religion that speaks of Jesus, but forgets the God he gave his life to serve.

I guess these thoughts may not mean much to readers who haven't taken an interest in Church History or haven't puzzled over how to understand the theological teachings of the Church in relation to the Bible and experience.

But, I will close saying that when the early church sat down to speak to the "Adoptionists," the church should have said: "Thank you for emphasizing something we were overlooking - and something that is precious and sacred to the church's faith: belief in the humanity of Jesus and belief that he struggled in every way that we do, but without sin. And, also, celebration that something new happened on earth through Jesus' victorious life, something new brought about by God's vindication and exaltation of Jesus after the crucifixion."

The missing piece of modern theology is a real belief in Jesus' humanity. It is a radical belief, which the early church took for granted, and which modern Christians have very little appreciation for. Christians speak easily about Jesus' divinity, but uneasily about his humanity. If you aren't proud of his humanity, you have no business speaking of his divinity.

1 comment:

  1. You are so right. And the critics of Christianity, get it, because they live in their humanity and want/need to meet a God that they believe truly "understands" their human needs. I love the human Jesus, because I believe that he walked with earth with joys and pains just like me (minus the PMS and childbirth, smile). And I try to present that God, because that's the one many folks need to know, because that God understands

    ReplyDelete